Close Gitmo?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. Yes, assume I'm acting nefariously! Because I'm up to no good. Can't trust dem libruls!

 

You know one way to ensure that I'll know what you're talking about? When you mean "$2.50 a gallon" write "$2.50 a gallon." Not "250 a gallon."

 

There. Not hard.

 

From now on you can assume when I say "I'm not following you" or "I have no idea what you're talking about" it's because I'm reading what you wrote and ...I don't know what you're talking about. Deal?

 

Yes, now I remember Newt's ridiculous pledge. And your analogy doesn't work. One is a laughable and impossible campaign pander that no one took seriously. The other is not all of those things. Resetting interrogation guidelines and the judicial process for detainees, in case you haven't noticed, has been a priority of the administration. (Check how they just handled the Boston suspects, while everyone on the right screamed "enemy combatant.") Closing Gitmo is one part of that. And now he's going to push for that part again, and likely fail again.

 

It's nothing like Newt Gingrich's last gasp campaign brainfart.

 

Also, you don't seem to think that it's ever worth it to take a stand on an issue even when the likelihood is that you aren't going to get the votes to pass what you want, and that doing this is tantamount to ignorance. I don't agree with that either. At all.

[calfoxwc]

I think we should keep Gitmo open despite heck and the rest of the left's causing the "trouble".

 

20 percent of those release at Gitmo, go back to terrorism.

 

Don't be stupid on the subject Obamao. eh...too late again.

 

Instead of torture, they should just let them starve themselves to death.

 

If they have to force them ...feed them bacon, and ham. and dirt. and saltwater.

[Westside Steve]

so you were dumbfounded by saying 250 a gallon instead of typing out the dollar sign and the decimal point?

even when I used the word gasoline, and we were talking about campaign promises, and I even used the name Newt Gingrich?

I guess I gave you credit for being a little smarter, my bad.

 

and now you want to drag out this transparent dodge because you fucked up?

I think there's a heck translation in there somewhere. Hopefully the work you are doing is better quality than this.

[Westside Steve]

and back to your spin.

yes indeed I think it's perfectly valid for a candidate to take a stand on an issue that he feels strongly about. Even if it is one I disagree with. But that's not what he did. He made a promise.

of course neither one of us think he was qualified to make such a promise since he didn't really understand what is involved.

 

he surely had some advisors with enough experience to tell him that closing Guantanamo Bay was a long shot at best, don't you think?

 

wouldn't you expect that from a Republican candidate?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Hey one more glitch.

did you just quip that you wanted gas prices to go up, pretending that you really don't?

are you on the record as saying that you now don't believe higher gas prices are good for the environment because they would curtail use of fossil fuels? It seems to me that was one of the ideas of the administration.

did you disagree then or do you disagree now or are you just talking out your ass?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

so you were dumbfounded by saying 250 a gallon instead of typing out the dollar sign and the decimal point?

even when I used the word gasoline, and we were talking about campaign promises, and I even used the name Newt Gingrich?

 

 

Yep. Didn't know what you were talking about. I thought you were talking about some carbon tax thing to make gas prices go through the roof or something.

[heckofajobbrownie]

and back to your spin.

yes indeed I think it's perfectly valid for a candidate to take a stand on an issue that he feels strongly about. Even if it is one I disagree with. But that's not what he did. He made a promise.

of course neither one of us think he was qualified to make such a promise since he didn't really understand what is involved.

 

he surely had some advisors with enough experience to tell him that closing Guantanamo Bay was a long shot at best, don't you think?

 

wouldn't you expect that from a Republican candidate?

 

WSS

 

I'm quite sure he understood what was involved. That's where you're losing me.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hey one more glitch.

did you just quip that you wanted gas prices to go up, pretending that you really don't?

are you on the record as saying that you now don't believe higher gas prices are good for the environment because they would curtail use of fossil fuels? It seems to me that was one of the ideas of the administration.

did you disagree then or do you disagree now or are you just talking out your ass?

WSS

 

I wanted cap and trade, but save that I want carbon taxes, which would make gas prices go up. I'm not following where you think the inconsistency is. I've only been talking about this for years.

[Westside Steve]

a few posts a go you ended with as you know I want gas prices to go up. I wasn't sure if you were being facetious or just stating a fact that's it.

not a big deal.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, I do. Carbon prices up, income/FICA taxes down.

 

So back to the topic ...what do you do with the prisoners at Gitmo?

[Westside Steve]

leave them there.

 

or let them go.

 

I certainly don't see the advantage of changing their location to the United States.

if we're afraid to offend al Qaeda they will probably hate Colorado just as bad. And make the same claims of torture and abuse. And they won't eat Hickenloopers food any quicker than they eat whatever they get at quantanamo.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh Jesus. Never mind.

 

Shame on me.

[Westside Steve]

Oh Jesus. Never mind.

 

Shame on me.

 

 

Shame on you for being a dipstick.

 

Sorry, I'm sure it will be great. Close it down.

Al Qaeda will love us again Thank Allah.

 

I can hear the patter in the lunchroom: Achmuud, Pass the spare ribs please

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, that's what this is about.

 

Stick to the Yoko jokes.

[Westside Steve]

at any rate heck I just don't see what we gain.

the conditions there are better than any other prisonand you know that the enemies are going to claim horrific treatment no matter where these prisoners are located.

also I believe that since we are being accused without merit then it's probably not a good idea to jump and dance when they make their specious charges.

did I spell that right?

so that's my take.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

for the record it's the right spelling I think, just the wrong word. I think I wanted something more akin to bullshit

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're missing the point here. You can go back and read - this really isn't about imagining you're going to make Al Qaeda like us, though that's the question you keep answering even though no one is asking it.

 

You have to figure out what to do with all of those prisoners. All of their cases have been studied. Each individual case. They're not all the same. Some have been cleared for release. Some have been cleared for transfer. Some have been cleared for trial. Some we can try because we tortured them. Some we can't try and we can't release. It's a big fucking mess.

 

Simply saying "Leave them all there" doesn't work. Except, of course, in the fascist state often express sympathy for.

[Westside Steve]

Actually you are missing the point. And yes of course someone is making that argument, the president did in 2008 and vapor trail is making it now.

 

But let's agree to take that off the table.

 

So you're problem is that there are all sorts of tangled legal things going on that were not sure how to handle right?

 

Well my two options, leave them there or let them go seem about right.

If these people aren't guilty of any infraction why keep them there?

If they have them give them a trial and keep them there indefinitely.

 

But whatever the legal entanglements might be it doesn't matter where you keep them until those are sorted out.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, want's the house in their home state.

 

I also have no idea whose responsibility it is to sort it out. The Justice Department? The military?

Anyway no matter who it is it doesn't matter where they sleep.

 

As long as it isn't near our house. Or yours.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Are you kidding? We can't house prisoners in America? This is something we haven't learned to do?

 

Would be happy as a clam to put them in the prison nearest to my house, or anywhere else. They frighten me little.

 

And you're skirting over all of the legal issues, but that's okay.

[Westside Steve]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/10/obama_guantanamo_bay_is_a_recruiting_tool_for_al-qaeda.html

 

Right around 110. Hey if you want to have your governor, isn't it Jerry Brown, call the president and

request them to come to California.

 

And you still haven't solved one of the legal issues you fret about. Not one.

 

Was

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's okay. Let's skip this one. It's not the conversation I want to spend my time having.

[Westside Steve]

good idea. Next time wait until you have an idea of what actually bothers you and how you want to change it.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hardly the issue here.

 

You're already got your one stance - let 'em go or leave 'em there - and you're sticking to it. And from there we just discuss bullshit that has nothing to do with anything. That's when I've learned to cut bait.

 

Silly me for expecting more. After all, why talk about judicial process with someone who doesn't believe in our judicial system?

[Westside Steve]

You aren't talking about the judicial process you're talking about closing up a facility for no apparent reason.

And you know perfectly well it wouldn't change the legality.

 

So you grumble.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, the main reason we keep them there is so we don't have to adjudicate their cases! If you bring them to America, guess what happens? You have to allow these people access to the judicial process.

 

That's the main reason to close the facility - to force the system to adjudicate these cases so they're not just stuck in legal limbo forever. So why would you imagine that there's "no apparent reason" to close the facility? The reason is obvious, and everyone understands this. But you.

 

Fact of the matter is you don't know what the reason is and you don't know perfectly well that it changes the legal circumstances. Which is why I don't want to discuss these issues with you. Because you don't even know that much, while claiming that I don't.

 

 

And we just had this conversation in another thread, like, last week. Where you spout off like you know something, and roll your eyes, and you turn out to be completely wrong. Remember that?

 

You should really stop doing that.

 

Good ni-ight...

[Westside Steve]

no I don't remember that. Second allow me to say with all due respect, bullshit. Just because you want to move a bunch of prisoners taken on the battlefield to a US Court so we can have a circus is no reason to close a perfectly usable military prison facility. As to the reasons I gave you the president's own words. Yes they were probably somebody else's words but he read them. So if anyone is going to stop doing anything perhaps you should quit changing the subject and boasting of knowledge you don't have.

so you disagree with Obama and think it would be a good idea to have Gloria Allred or someone similar to defend these guys here in New York or somewhere? Doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

as far as my suggestion to keep them there or let them go that's the exact policy of the administration, right? We've already lett well over half of them go.

 

you don't need to be an American court to adjudicate any of these matters apparently. Then again that's not the reason the president gave so...

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Putting terrorists on trial, with all American citizen rights, is stupidass.

Therefore, lib anti-status quo progessive weinies want it changed.

 

How you going to adjudicate mini-me bin ladens? You bring them inside

our shores, adjudicate their cases, spend all that extra trial money, get some

released on technicalities, put em in prisons, and terrorists overseas will start

bombing the crap out of every city near a prison to get them released or else.

 

What's the stupid point? For liberal show of change whatever it is that exists?

 

They are enemy combatant terrorists. To me, liberals like heck and all, want to make

terrorists at Gitmo a circus in our courts, that have too much to do already.

 

Here's one: Bring them into Obamao's and Holder's INjustice system. Now they have

a right to a speedy trial, eh?

 

Then they all have to be released because their non-exist "Constitutional rights" have been

violated.

 

That's a liberal "haha", because they can say "see? gosh, Bush was so bad to make this happen."

And then, innocent Americans can be blown up again and again by the released terrorists, and

the Obamao cult members can all laugh and say "BUSH DID ALL THIS BY USING GITMO".

 

Ridiculous? Sure. Ask yourselves if it's possible.

 

You betcha it is. And the marxists, Obamao and all, can claim more gov power in the emergency.

 

Seems to me, we should let them starve themselves with food right in front of them, if they want to. Problem solved.

[Westside Steve]

At one time there worth 779 prisoners. George W Bush released 500. 242 Remained at the beginning of the Obama presidency. Of those 126 are eligible to be released.

72 have been repatriated, sent somewhere else, just let out to someone else's custody.

 

So as you see taking care of these cases down there has not posed a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Phew. For a second there I was worried that we had a total legal clusterfuck going on.

 

Here's that left-wing rag The Economist today:

 

 

The spectre of prisoners denied either a fair trial or the possibility of release is Orwellian. Nothing has done more to sully America’s image in the modern world. They should be tried or set free, just as terrorist suspects are in every other civilised country.

Four years and three months ago, Barack Obama, in one of his first official acts as president, wrote an executive order to close the prison camp. This week he said Guantánamo “is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.” And yet it goes on. Some of the 166 have been there as long as 11 years, without ever even having been charged.

...Mr Obama and Congress have thus ensured that even the 86 detainees whom the administration has slated for release are stuck. The remainder, whom the Americans reckon have cases to answer, cannot be tried in civilian court because Congress has blocked that route, and the administration has given up trying to change its mind. With the Republicans now in control of the House, the chances of a reversal on that score look unlikely. Some are supposedly being tried by Donald Rumsfeld’s “military tribunals” at Guantánamo itself: but that process is so ugly and has run into so many legal difficulties that it has more or less ground to a halt. Sending them abroad for trial would not work, in most cases, either: the evidence is generally too weak or too tainted by torture (thank you, Mr Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney et al) to try them anywhere.

The lesser evil

America is in a hole. The last response of the blowhards and cowards who have put it there is always: “So what would you do: set them free?” Our answer remains, yes. There is clearly a risk that some of them would then commit some act of violence—in Yemen, elsewhere in the Middle East or even in America itself. That risk can be lessened by surveillance. But even if another outrage were to happen, the evil of “Gitmo” has recruited far more people to terrorism than a mere 166. Mr Obama should think about America’s founding principles, take out his pen and end this stain on its history.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And we didn't even mention this:

 

The Pentagon estimates it spends about $150 million each year to operate the prison and military court system at the U.S. Naval Base inCuba, which was set up 11 years ago to house foreign terrorism suspects. With 166 inmates currently in custody, that amounts to an annual cost of $903,614 per prisoner.

By comparison, super-maximum security prisons in the United States spend about $60,000 to $70,000 at most to house their inmates, analysts say. And the average cost across all federal prisons is about $30,000, they say.